Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As to the theme of this thread, if the press is restricted (self imposed or not) in the manner they can report news, how "free is our speech" in reality?
`
The self imposed part is the issue. You can not blame someone else for a limitation you put on yourself even if you view it as being in your best interest. There have been times in our history when certain groups were physically attacked for practicing free speech. This has happened all over the world. Dictators don't just say, I won't hire you because I don't like what you say. They kill and jail people. That is a true threat to freedom of speech. Realizing that people have the right to boycott you, not like you, and call you names is not a threat to free speech. Its realizing that freedom always comes at a cost.
That isn't a free speech issue. It may be morally wrong, and it may open one's self to a civil suit, but isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Reading through the threads here, I'm shocked at how little understanding there seems to be about what freedom of speech actually means. Again, "freedom of speech" only refers to actions taken by the government to limit the speech of its people. It doesn't cover a single thing a private person does.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of posters from this thread jumped on the Chic-fil-a "freedom of speech" controversy.
I think Chic-fil-a is a perfect example of how freedom of speech works and really undermines the PC cry babies. A higher up at a private business made some remarks that angered some people. They boycotted. Other people supported the remarks and showed up to support chic-fil-a. Chic-fil-a had to deal with the consequences of that speech. The protestors had to deal with the consequences of there speech, which was to realize there were many people willing to financially back the executives message.
I think Chic-fil-a is a perfect example of how freedom of speech works and really undermines the PC cry babies. A higher up at a private business made some remarks that angered some people. They boycotted. Other people supported the remarks and showed up to support chic-fil-a. Chic-fil-a had to deal with the consequences of that speech. The protestors had to deal with the consequences of there speech, which was to realize there were many people willing to financially back the executives message.
But at no point was it ever a first amendment (free speech) issue, which was the rallying cry of CFA supporters. Many CFA supporters were not merely saying "We agree with Cathy's view on gay marriage," but they were instead saying "We support Cathy's right to free speech." However, the reaction against Cathy's comments was not a threat against his freedom of speech. The whole response by CFA supporters demonstrated a lack of understanding of the first amendment.
But at no point was it ever a first amendment (free speech) issue, which was the rallying cry of CFA supporters. Many CFA supporters were not merely saying "We agree with Cathy's view on gay marriage," but they were instead saying "We support Cathy's right to free speech." However, the reaction against Cathy's comments was not a threat against his freedom of speech. The whole response by CFA supporters demonstrated a lack of understanding of the first amendment.
I agree with you. I would call the CFA supports PC cry babies. Any time someone says something they don't like in response to them exercising their freedom of speech they cry, political correctness. If anything using the term PC police is just an attempt to stifle views they don't like. What they don't get is that, citizens trying to stifle views in a non violent way is not a violation of freedom of speech.
Oh please this has nothing to do with PC police. This is all about capitalism and you know it.
That makes no sense whatsoever in relation to this topic. The koolaid drinkers supporting Hillary didn't come up with that list of prohibited words because of capitalism.
They are undoubtedly infected with PC as many liberals are, and decided to warn the American press which words cannot be used to describe her without a repercussion of the label of sexism. That is the very definition of political correctness which tells people what they can and cannot say, otherwise there will be a price to be paid for it.
The self imposed part is the issue. You can not blame someone else for a limitation you put on yourself even if you view it as being in your best interest. There have been times in our history when certain groups were physically attacked for practicing free speech. This has happened all over the world. Dictators don't just say, I won't hire you because I don't like what you say. They kill and jail people. That is a true threat to freedom of speech. Realizing that people have the right to boycott you, not like you, and call you names is not a threat to free speech. Its realizing that freedom always comes at a cost.
It is one thing for you to apply your beliefs to average Americans. It is a much different thing to apply it to the American press/media. We have the freedom of expression/thought not only based on the words contained in our Constitution, but the ability to have a free press to help keep those in power accountable.
Also when I say self imposed, I also mean for nefarious/biased reasons. When you have the head of CBS news killing stories because his brother works for the Obama administration, that is a frightening revelation.
I agree with you. I would call the CFA supports PC cry babies. Any time someone says something they don't like in response to them exercising their freedom of speech they cry, political correctness. If anything using the term PC police is just an attempt to stifle views they don't like. What they don't get is that, citizens trying to stifle views in a non violent way is not a violation of freedom of speech.
I think that hits the nail on the head. "PC" has become a veiled reference to anything related to a progressive or liberal agenda. But, as you point out, it essentially amounts to nothing more than a critique of another's speech, which is the very thing the folks crying "PC!" were supposedly opposed to.
which tells people what they can and cannot say, otherwise there will be a price to be paid for it.
There is always a price to be paid. That is exactly why I said this directly related to capital. If it is good for business it will be said. If it is bad for business it will be stifled. You forget that these news organizations are businesses. All businesses exist to make a profit. They are to there shareholders and customers not the American people as a whole. If they feel there customers will react negatively to using those words they won't. If they feel there customers will respond positively to those words they will. One of the reports who got the letter used her freedom of speech to publicize it. Fox news viewers want to see Hilary described in those terms so fox news will use them. They will use them because it is financially beneficial for them to do so. MSNBC will not because using them will be a financial liability.
It is one thing for you to apply your beliefs to average Americans. It is a much different thing to apply it to the American press/media. We have the freedom of expression/thought not only based on the words contained in our Constitution, but the ability to have a free press to help keep those in power accountable.
Also when I say self imposed, I also mean for nefarious/biased reasons. When you have the head of CBS news killing stories because his brother works for the Obama administration, that is a frightening revelation.
We do not have a free press. We have never had a free press. We have a press free from government control but there is no way to ever have a truly free press. All that group can do is publicly shame reports who violate there silly demand. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom from ridicule.
As for the head of CBS, that only hurts people who make the choice to only get there news from CBS. No one is forcing them to only get there news from CBS. No one is forcing reporters who have incriminating news on the white house from going somewhere else. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press does not mean freedom from non violent consequences. What happened to Charlie Hebdo is truly a threat against freedom of speech. Iran jailing reports is a true threat to freedom of the press. We have as much freedom as any communal society can have. At the end of the day your speech will always have consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
